Both these cameras have all the features we want and we are impressed with the picture quality, but we can't decide which is more important. The Nikon has the ability to rotate the lens which we love (we played around with the Ricoh 4200 and the rotating lens really came in handy), but we also love the idea of being able to use the Flashpath adapter (hate the idea of always having to plug the camera in to download pics) and having the option of the uncompressed TIFF pictures (although we may never even use that feature it's nice to know we have the option). Anyone have any thoughts on this or any other advantages/disadvantages between the two that we might not have thought of?

-- Sharon Carroll (marc_alley@sprynet.com), November 24, 1998

Answers

I am also interested in this question - doing the same evaluation. The Nikon can do IPIX pictures (for cost of mount, fisheye lens, and IPIX keys at $25 each). Mind you, both Nikon and Olympus can be used with QuickStitch for a whole lot less. Both cameras have great lenses, and Nikon uses Compact Flash which is available with more MB than Smart Media (at the moment). Then again, there's the Canon Pro 70 which SHOULD take the new IBM mini-hard-disk next year... Any comments on Nikon vs Olympus appreciated - esp. thoughts on picture quality (some comments in here about Nikon being a bit "washed", any feedback on this?). I think Nikon 900S can be sync'd to external flash, that would be a real plus point.

-- JM (millarjeremy@hotmail.com), November 25, 1998.

...Also, the Nikon has slow-sync flash mode, infinity lock, and other users confirm that once you get used to swivel lens, it is surprisingly useful. I think Nikon has three metering modes to Olympus two (?) and tests show autofocus on Nikon is excellent. Nikon has 2 inch LCD to Olympus 1.8 inch. But the Olympus, as you say, does have that flashpath adaptor...

-- JM (millarjeremy@hotmail.com), November 25, 1998.

I had assumed the Olympus had a slow sync option as well, that certainly is an advantage. I am just reading about the sandisk ImageMate USB compactflash reader -for $89 this sounds even better than the Flashpath, to me, if I'm not missing anything. I really love that revolving lens -it just makes taking pictures all that much more fun and the IPIX option certainly sounds like even more fun (although by the time I ever get around to purchasing a fisheye lens there will probably be some even better, less expensive camera with more bells and whistles that I will be looking to upgrade to, maybe). I find having a separate lens cap to be a real nuisance though. The other thing I'm wondering about is the speed with which you can view and delete images -I think the olympus is faster on this and I know from the Ricoh waiting to go through the stored images can be irritating -small gripe, but trying to decide between these two cameras I'm finding I have to look at the little things because it's such a tough choice -they both sound so great! Probably the revolving lens would encourage more use of the LCD and therefor the nikon would go through battery life quicker. Hadn't heard anything about washed out pictures. I wonder if there is some advantage to having a camera and a photo printer of the same brand (other than being able to print directly from the camera which I would probably rarely if ever do).

-- SC (marc_alley@sprynet.com), November 25, 1998.

As you point out, there are other ways to read compactflash memory besides the camera's own serial port. You usually get a "free" PCMCIA adapter with CF cards, and you can install a PCMCIA port on your desktop. For about the same price you can get external CF readers that connect via USB or parallel port.

If that's the only issue you're worried about the CP900S should be a clear winner.

-- Ben Jackson (ben@ben.com), November 26, 1998.

Just got the Olympus 400zoom to try out and I cannot rave enough about this camera! I printed out some shots I took in my dimly lit living room with the max. compression at 1280x960 and even cropped and enlarged portions to fit a full page -even with just my epson 500 using regular 720 dpi paper ($.14/sheet) the pictures look just as good on my mantle as the ones I had taken at Olan Mills. I am extremely impressed with how quickly I can take pictures -it doesn't seem to take any longer between each shot than my 35mm olympus and I think the pictures come out better (wouldn't have even bothered taking a picture in as poor lighting as I did with the digital). I was looking at my shots in less than a minute with the Flashpath (after loading all the software). If pics look this good w/ the oly I can only imagine how great the Nikon must be... what I wonder is if the Nikon is as fast. I can't seem to find any place to try one out without having to pay shipping and restocking fees which I don't want to risk especially since the oly seems to perform so well. The other big bonus is I've taken over 40 shots and played around w/ the camera quite a bit and I am still on the same batteries. I haven't really gotten much of chance to really play with all the features, but so far my two gripes are having to manually open the flash (easy to forget those little things when you are anxious to get a quick shot) and I find myself having to constantly refer back to the manual to figure out how to do anything (like I still have to find out how to erase all pictures at once instead of one at a time -I was too lazy to look that up) and the manual is annoying (written in 3 languages throughout rather than separating the languages and no index among other complaints about it).

-- Sharon Carroll (marc_alley@sprynet.com), December 02, 1998.