Search and Shop at the B&H Store

Articles and Reviews

Photography

Edwin's World

Readers' Gallery

Site Map

NikonLinks

Wedding Photography

Home >> Photography >> Digital

Nikon Coolpix 950 Digital Camera
Written in 2001

I finally ventured into the brave new world of digital image capture with a Nikon Coolpix 950. The CP950 came out in 1999 and we are now well into 2001, meaning that in the world of digital imaging, the CP950 is considered nearly obsolete. Two new CP9xx digital cameras have been introduced with higher specifications than the CP950 and yet the CP950 continues in the Nikon lineup and still sells quite well, especially since its major price reduction.

Nikon is a leader in the high-end consumer digital point and shoot market that the CP950 belonged to. The original Coolpix 900 was quite radical in design and Nikon has kept the same design onwards for newer cameras. The CP950, though keeping the original CP900 and CP900s styling, introduced some refinements that made it a leader in its heyday.

For the most complete technical review of the CP950, visit Philip Askey's Digital Camera Review site, no need for me to repeat what Mr. Askey has already done so well (actually far better than what I could have hoped to accomplish in this review). Also Thom Hogan has some good real-world insights into the CP950 too on his website.

The most obvious change from the original CP900 has been to the all black, pro-look of the camera and much appreciated by me, the magnesium-alloy construction that first saw light in the successful Nikon F100 SLR camera. This metal build allows the camera to be solid yet very lightweight for a metal body.

The CP950 has a bit more bulk than many other competing digital cameras but is not the largest among the 2 Megapixel cameras (the Sony MVC-FD97 probably holds that honor). Ah, yes, the CP950 is only 2 Megapixels (actually less than 2 MP but close enough) in image capture and that is where it falls behind the current 3 MP standard that is soon to give way to the coming crop of 4 MP prosumer digital cameras (Sony and Fuji already out with new models with Nikon and Canon sure to follow).

When the CP950 first came out two years ago, it was priced at $1500 CAN. This dropped to just over $1000 CAN by the time the CP990 was introduced in 2000 and then the price fell dramatically with the introduction of the CP995. At the beginning of July 2001, the CP950 was priced at $700 CAN but as of this writing in late July 2001, the price is now only $650 CAN. This is the price that I purchased the CP950 for in Vancouver and as far as I can determine, it is the lowest price in Canada with Vistek in Toronto still selling it for $700.

The Contender
$650 CAN for a 2 MP camera as well built and as well featured as the CP950 was just too enticing to pass up and after finally receiving permission from my wife (yes, yes I know) I went ahead and bought it. Previous to the purchase had me looking at another 2 MP camera in the HP Photosmart 912 which is actually a Pentax designed and built unit (the EI 2000 in Pentax guise).

The HP912 is priced around $900CAN but I would have been able to save a bit more through other contacts. Its design and feature set is quite intriguing and is certainly one of the more comfortable digital cameras to handle outside of an SLR. The styling and ergonomics are that of an entry-level SLR design and its lens is generously sized for gripping and very nice of Pentax to incorporate the zooming of the lens in the lens barrel itself. A dial control provides access to the main modes of the HP912 and a big plus for me is its built-in hot shoe to provide easy flash work, something that so few digital cameras offer. Its only downside that I could see, other than the lowish 2 MP resolution, is the lack of support for lens adapters, either from Pentax or from third party companies. Like most other digital cameras with zoom lenses, wide-angle and telephoto coverage cover a narrow general range of 38mm to 105mm equivalent to 35mm film format.

I believe Tiffen offers some 49mm sized lens adapters but could find no other and even then, the Tiffen adapter does not go truly wide, as it is limited to 28mm coverage. It seemed like I was down the path to owning the HP912 but then I found out the price of the Nikon CP950 and was wooed by the low price.

Right off the bat, the CP950 betters the HP912 in build quality and lens flexibility in terms of orientation - yes I have taken some self portraits with the CP950 and wholly relished being able to compose myself in the scene with the lens part of the camera turned 180 degrees and using the LCD screen for viewing. Beautiful and a feature that has been copied to a degree by other companies, or perhaps Nikon copied the basics of it from the swivel LCD screens of video camcorders. Who knows, it is just an imminently flexible feature to have and to use.

Caveats after the Euphoria
I will let the cat out of the bag and reveal that I do like the CP950 but it most certainly is not a perfect digital camera. Why else, aside from resolution, would there be a CP990, a CP995, and probably a CP999 down the road?

The biggest gripe I have with the CP950 is the lack of a flash hot shoe or easy attachment of an accessory flash unit. In this write-up I will be comparing the CP950 to that of the only other digital camera I have any familiarity with, the ancient Kodak DC260. The DC260 is an even older camera than the CP950 being contemporaneous to the Nikon CP900s and although certainly devoid of the user controlled features of the CP950, the Kodak DC260 betters the Nikon in two respects,

1. PC sync connection external flash
2. USB compatibility

I can accept that Nikon did not wish to incorporate a flash hot shoe on the CP950 for handling and structural integrity issues but they did at least provide a Nikon specific flash connector. Why could they not add a PC sync socket like other competitors did? As it is I had to spend, another $60 CAN to purchase the Nikon flash cord for the Coolpix 9xx series cameras. I would have much preferred a PC sync socket for those times I wish to use my Multiblitz flashes.

The other major grouse with being a CP950 owner is the near-mandatory requirement to purchase an external Compact Flash (CF) card reader because the CP950 only offers a serial connection to the computer when using it to download the stored files. In my first two-weeks of ownership of the CP950 I shot over 600 images and had to download all of them via the built-in serial connector, a most horrifically slow connection and waste of time compared to the Sandisk CF card reader I have now.

I would have had the card reader sooner but since I source much of my computer hardware and software from a non-retail source, I sometimes have a delay in getting the accessories I require. Again, my point is that if a cheaper, older, and less well-featured camera such as the Kodak DC260 can incorporate what was the speed connection of the time, why could Nikon not have done the same for what was arguably the class-leading digicam of the time? Some speed comparisons, 20 MB worth of images would take nearly 30 minutes to download via the serial connection. The Sandisk card reader takes only 30 seconds for the same amount of data

And, how about the nearly useless 8 MB CF card supplied with the camera? An 8 MB CF card for a camera that writes near-1 MB JPEG Fine image files? Truly astounding but in defense of Nikon, supplying an 8 MB card was the norm for all the companies at the time. Nowadays the companies are becoming truly generous with gargantuan 16 MB cards. Let's get serious here and let me suggest that digicam companies should provide 32 MB cards and better yet 64 MB cards with their cameras at no added cost to the consumer.

What this little rant of mine is getting at is that buying a digital camera is not a one shot hit to the wallet and that further expenditure is required to make the camera part of a versatile kit. The CP950 does not come with an AC adapter, meaning another $60 hit if you wish to have AC power for indoor studio shooting. The kit does not include rechargeable batteries, meaning at least another $100 to purchase third party cells. When I bought the CP950, I immediately purchased two sets of Energizer Ni-MH cells and charger to displace the alkaline cells that came with it. Shortly after, I bought another set of cells for three-sets in total and I very much needed them in my first two-weeks with the camera.

The CP950 is a power hungry camera when the LCD screen is used to compose and view the images. A fresh set of cells will only last about an hour with the LCD on all the time. Add to that my need to use the CP950 as the download connection to the computer for the first two-weeks and I would have put myself in the poorhouse if I had to use regular batteries instead of rechargeable cells. The CP950 at least uses AA sized cells so going off to a third-world country should not pose too much of a problem if power is required but I would have preferred a longer lasting lithium-ion option as the CP995 now has.

Other nitpicky things about the CP950 are,

• The bottom loading Compact Flash slot. This slot is right beside the tripod mount, which requires you to remove the camera from the tripod and then remove the quick release plate to access the CF card. The CF card location has been moved to the side of the camera on the CP950 and CP995.
  
  
• The tripod mount is in a horrible location and does not seem particularly well built, as it appears to be made of plastic (for regular readers of this site, you will become aware of my allergic reaction to things plastic in photographic equipment). The mount is located right at the front underside of the camera, which only provides a quick release plate 60 percent coverage for security and stability. The mount does not seem to secure my Arca Swiss based quick release plates well at all as there is still some flex and give whenever I press down on the shutter release. The F100 tripod mount is rock solid in comparison and even the one on the MB15 grip is too. The tripod mount is now centralized on the CP990 and CP995 because the CF card slot is no longer at the bottom.
  
  
• The shutter release seems to require more pressure to release the shutter than a film camera and is most certainly not like the hair-trigger shutter release on the F100 or on any other auto focus SLR for that matter. There is a two-step detent to the shutter release, the first detent starts the metering and autofocus and the second completes the image capture. I have encountered a number of blurred images when trying to do tripod mounted shoots and trying to lightly apply pressure to the shutter release but as mentioned above, the weak tripod mount allows too much flex and finger pressure can move the entire camera during the image capture process. The optional remote cord is probably the only workaround this for another $150 CAN more.
  
  
• All metal build is great but the CP950 still is very lightweight and does not have enough mass to allow for a very stable handheld shooting. Proper technique is important to get the sharpest images.
  
  
• For the reasons above, I have taken to using the self-timer to allow the camera to stabilize before image capture when using a tripod but Nikon did a silly thing and does not allow users to do Macro shooting with the self-timer because the two features are accessed by the same control button. Actually, it is not silly it is downright stupid because macro photography is when a self-timer would be most handy to avoid vibration. Another situation requiring the expensive remote cord.
  
  
• I am not taken with menu driven options for important options such as metering. A dedicated button would have been nice to have for fast access to changing the metering mode of the camera for more experienced users of the camera. Otherwise, the way Nikon setup the menu access is satisfactory as most of those features are not everyday use ones. I suppose it is nice to have so many options available and the successor CP990 and CP995 offer even more but I do fine it perverse that I should have a $1000 CAN software program in Photoshop 6 and not use that to edit my images as I see fit.
  
  
• Why do digicam companies insist on adding a qualitatively useless feature such as digital zoom? It may seem like getting something for nothing but the results are not acceptable for quality print purposes due to the obvious pixelization/aliasing byproducts (the step-like structure of fine details that scream out low-quality digital image).
  
  
• Purple fringing of highlights can be quite noticeable, so care must be taken with your exposures to keep the highlights from burning out.
  
  
• The viewfinder has noticeable distortion, pincushion for the zoom max and barrel for the wide-angle setting.
  
  
• The wide-angle is not truly wide at an equivalent of only 38mm in 35mm film format but Nikon should be commended for offering the wide-angle adapter for the Coolpix cameras with a 24mm equivalent available. Fisheye, 2x Teleconvertor, and 3x Teleconvertor adapters are also available as is a slide-copying adapter to digitize your 35mm slides. All of course for more hundreds of dollars, adding to the cost of that so-called bargain.
  
  
• There is too much depth of field when the zoom lens is at its maximum optical focal length but that is more a property of physics with such short lenses and small CCDs used in digital compact cameras. The lens is a 7mm to 21mm, which equates to 38mm to 115mm in 35mm film format. Of course if you know a little about optical physics (I do not actually) you know that 21mm may be a telephoto for a small CCD digicam but it is still 21mm and you cannot alter the physics of the huge depth of field that a 21mm lens has matter what the format.
  
  
• The built-in flash is horrible and I think for users of the Coolpix 9xx cameras, the flash bracket or the adapter cord is mandatory for serious flash work. The sideways orientation of the tiny flash is also a pain to work around when using as the key light and red eyes have revealed themselves in my images when they had never been seen before even with my SB28 directly mounted to the F100. This flash is so weak that the ancient Kodak DC260 betters it for illuminating larger rooms. Trying to use the built in flash for anything beyond ten feet will result in recycle bin material. Use the exposure compensation, slow sync flash mode, or higher ISO setting to compensate if you do not have the flash cord or bracket to mate to a larger SB speed light.
  
  
• The design of the CP9xx series probably precludes any resolve of this irritant, but I find that my right thumb too easily slides over the LCD screen and mars the surface. I find that my grubby hands will work themselves all over the camera and leave finger marks on the screen and front and rear viewfinder windows.
  
  
• The ergonomic grip is okay but is not as contoured as the F100, a little more depth and height would have been a wonderful thing for a more solid hold.
  
  
• The battery chamber could really have used the one from the standard F100 SLR. A removable battery holder that could be quickly replaced with another would have made this power hungry camera much faster to use on the road. You can also feel the heat of the batteries (and LCD perhaps) when shooting for prolonged periods.
  
  
• The zoom lens is vari-aperture design, meaning it is faster at the wide-end than at the long. At 7mm it is f2.6 and at 21mm it is f4 and when the aperture is stopped down at 7mm it is f7.4 and f11.4 at 21mm.

Visual Caveats

Owning the CP950 means a mandatory purchase of one of these, a USB Compact Flash reader that will whiplash through your image files instead of plodding along via the CP950's serial connection. USB 2 would be even better.

Installing one of these will see your computer treat it as another hard drive, allowing you to write to the Compact Flash card too for use in other CF card compatible devices (MP3 players, digital camcorders, etc).

Caveats aside, the CP950 and its ilk still are wonderful tools that provide a liberating experience from the formalities of film shooting. Sample images for my web site can be taken and posted in such short order that I can think of an idea, create the page, and post in less than an hour compared to requiring days with a film image.

The image quality of the CP950 is by no means perfect but is more than capable enough to provide a photograph at 200 dpi print resolutions for a 6x8 inch print. Even a 150 dpi print at 7.5x10 inches is still quite good and lacking in artifacts for a slight loss in clarity added softness.

Digital Editorial Aside
Digital capture is an intriguing medium that has caused quite a stir when compared objectively to film capture. The purity of a digital capture done right can be startling thanks to the lack of noise or film grain. If we consider looking at a print enlargement to be analogous to viewing the scene through various windows (the original scene has no barriers but the original slide is one window in front of the viewer and the print is two windows or generations removed from the original) then I would consider a digital capture print to be minus one window onto the scene. That is how good digital can be.

One of my friends has stated that film and its qualities are still more pleasing to him. It is more organic and that is fine, to each his own but I am more excited by digital imaging than by film imaging these days and wonder how long my medium format based kit will still have a place in my camera bags. There are many film supporters who do not appreciate how far digital has come and how much more potential digital has. Digital has a hare-like development factor compared to the tortoise-like film.

R&D will continue for film and film will still improve in the short term but once Kodak sees a major drop in film staples such as MAX (or Fuji with its Superia) how much longer can we expect the companies to continue pushing the boundaries of film development (no pun intended). The big factor against wholesale digital adoption is cost not quality.

The quality of 2 and 3 MP cameras is most certainly good enough for the point and shoot crowd but the cameras need to fall to around $200-300 CAN before the peak of the mountain has been reached and the avalanche of digital taking over begins. How much longer will that be? Not much longer, I think as 4 MP compacts are being introduced and this will push the cost of the lower resolution cameras down further. Even now, there are 1 MP cameras breaking the price barrier to what the average consumer would find acceptable.

After breaking the cost barrier, what is required next is widespread digital print services. I am quite confident that Kodak and Fuji would provide incentives to 1-hour processors and mini-labs to provide digital print services in a more meaningful way than the current digital booths or kiosks. Once that has been done, film will become a dodo as far as the general consumer is concerned.

Without that continued source of income from consumer films, do you really think Kodak and Fuji would have much interest in keeping your favorite slide emulsions around and at low cost. No, film will not disappear once digital has made its invasion of the consumer market complete but it will not be widely available and the cost per roll for developing will increase too. Scale of economy will be lost. Let's face it shooting slide film is already a limiting process due to availability in specialty photo shops and processing only at pro labs. 

How soon would this happen? Tough to say, as it seems like many have been saying the digital onslaught is only five years away for the last five years. Perhaps it is already here and the push up the peak is nearing the climax.

The CP950 Again
Though the CP950 is two-years old and counting, it is still capable of fine imaging, certainly far superior than the Kodak DC260 I have experience with. The ergonomic layout is perhaps not what I would prefer but it seems Nikon did well with the compromises the design of the CP950 required.

• Start up time of the camera from the Off position to being ready for image taking is quite fast and better than most 35mm P&S cameras but by no means as fast as an SLR like the F100.
  
  
• The LCD screen is wonderfully clear and sharp but nearly useless in outdoor or brightly lit conditions. The difference in quality from the CP950 LCD to the Kodak DC260 is like scratchy vinyl to crystal clear CD.
  
  
• The auto focus, metering, and exposure compensation is tied in to the LCD screen thus allowing it to be a useful compositional device - I was actually blown away when I discovered this feature and marveled at the LCD changing its brightness level as I dialed in compensation. I expected the auto focus to be associated with the LCD but metering was another great benefit especially when using the spot meter and locking in exposure. It really is a shame that exposure and focus lock are tied in to the shutter release button, as the now common Custom Function 4 is a fantastic feature. There have been a few times I wanted to lock focus on one subject while exposing for another. The manual focus feature of the CP950 is for set distances, so is often not a good workaround to focus and metering problem. A dedicated AE lock button would have been a great addition.
  
  
• The metal build of the camera is excellent and would certainly indicate a longer lasting durability than plastic cameras. I have used the Kodak DC260 for a few years now and I have dropped it on a hard surface from a height of about three feet. Contrary to popular belief, plastic cameras do not bounce and although the DC260 continued to operate and still does today, the plastic door covering the battery chamber became damaged and the plastic door covering the flash card slot broke off. This is what you get for a cheaply constructed camera and keep in mind the DC260 cost $1300 new back in 1998. Having said that, not all is roses with the CP950 as its Compact Flash card slot is covered by a flimsy piece of plastic (Ah-choo, excuse my allergic sneeze). The little release button for the CF card is also less robust than I would prefer.
  
  
• The information tagged to the image is quite extensive and very good to understand how you captured the image. Such things as Aperture used, Shutter speed, focal length of lens, and compensation if any had been used, among others make for a built in notepad.
  
  
• Although Nikon chose not to include many accessories with the CP950, it is a part of a very good system for the CP9xx series. Lens adapters, flash brackets and cords, flash units, remote cords etc., make for a versatile system that can handle many shooting needs. A full system would not take up much space and would make for an ideal traveling companion.

The CP950 has more features available to the user but they are ones that I have little interest in. The CP950 is capable of writing a large uncompressed TIFF file but this is more fallacious than it appears to be due to its near-30 second write time. Pity the poor fool who would actually try to write a 6 Megabyte file size onto the included 8 MB card. I have the camera set to the second best image capture mode of JPEG Fine, which can output a near 1 MB file size (900 kb I believe). Most times you would not even be able to capture such a large file size as JPEG files are dependant upon the subject material for final file sizes.

The write time for JPEG Fine is still not fast enough for serious action sequences but for the general user the three-second write time is workable. I do not have much interest in shooting images at lower resolutions because I never know when I might want to print off an image. I would rather shoot at a high-resolution file size all the time to cover my bases. After downloading the image I convert the JPEG to Adobe's native PDS file format or a TIFF if I know I will be using Qimage or MGI Photosuite for multiple printing jobs.

The quality of image is already quite high when the image is opened up in Photoshop. Skin tones do benefit from additional warming up as they are a bit cool unedited, especially when flash has been used. Direct flash shots should be avoided as much as possible or accompanied by additional fill flash with secondary flashes with slave capabilities or adapters. As mentioned already, red eyes are a problem with the built-in flash being right at the lens axis. I have some more experimenting to do with using my SB28 and Vivitar flash units with optical slaves to brighten up a room and help lower the contrast of having only one small flash on camera. I did not think much about the CP995's new built in flash design, which is essentially the same as what consumer SLR cameras have, but after experience with the CP950 flash, I must say Nikon's redesign is a good idea. I am still waiting for my flash sync cord to come in as of this writing and will add an update once I have used it for some time.

The CP950 has an automatic turn-off feature that can be modified by the user to a degree and is a good battery saving feature, especially if you use the LCD screen a lot. The 256-segment Matrix meter is quite capable in most shooting situations but as with any other meter, user compensation is required for complex lighting scenes.

The short focal lengths of the zoom lens means being able to cheat when handholding the camera. The camera already defaults to 1/30 of a second shutter speed when the flash is forced on or on Auto mode but I have been able to take acceptably sharp images at slower speeds and I am not one who would be considered very shake free. The flash has a slow sync mode to balance out the flash with the ambient exposure and is quite nice to have, as many serious flash users would know (within the limitations of the flash of course). The unfortunate aspect of the flash is the lack of compensation provided to the user, something that has been alleviated in the CP990 and CP995.

I can adjust the ambient compensation by plus or minus two-stops but it does nothing for the flash. Minus compensation merely allows the flash to become the key light instead of fill light and plus compensation with flash will wash out the subject scene.

With the future flash sync adapter in tow, the CP950 will displace my Bronica Polaroid filmback as a pre-shoot exposure check for the times I want to shoot medium format portraits. With the wide-angle adapter and new Lowepro AF Plus case to protect it and hold the extra batteries, the CP950 kit will become a wonderful and lightweight travel kit. It has already become a hit among the extended family and been called for those times images are required but film was not - like taking shots of a potential house purchase for my brother-in-law, or taking family photos of a visiting uncle from Hong Kong the night before he left town and being able to give him some digital prints early the next morning before he left. I think even my wife likes it (despite it being another photo-related purchase) and she will probably use it more than her (my) Nikon Zoom 310 point and shoot camera.

The CP950 is a very nice first digital camera for me to own and actually part with my own money for. Would I want the CP995 instead, damn right I would but $1400 CAN was just too much for me to contemplate at this time. However, given how popular the CP9xx series has been I am hopeful that Nikon will continue the design and capabilities of the series in future cameras. This would allow me to confidently purchase accessories for the CP950 without fear of obsolescence.

I am not so certain, on a pure quality level, moving up from 2 Megapixels to 3 Megapixels represents a significant enough upgrade. A doubling to 4 MP probably would be for enlargement purposes and is what I would want to wait out for before moving further down the yellow byte road. I have no doubt that a CP999 or CP1000 will be forthcoming in 2002 if not sooner to keep up with the digital Joneses. Until then I will be quite happy to use the CP950 for family shoots, travel situations, and for web site sample shots, all at very significant costs savings from not having to shoot film. This despite all the nit-picky things outline in this review, the low cost of the camera helps to put it in perspective.

WC-E63 Wide-angle adapter to provide a 24mm equivalent perspective in 135 terms
Vancouver Public Library in downtown Vancouver taken at the 38mm widest setting of the Coolpix 950 by itself.	With the WC-E63 at the widest setting. Notice the amount of flare streaking across the diagonal of the frame with the sun in the shot. Even when the sun is not in the scene but merely close by, flare is still a problem.

Correspondence & About this website

Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong