I am going to buy one of these cameras. Does somebody know what is the best one (i do not care for the price) and explain the comparison ? Congratulations for this site and this forum ! phl@cogitel.fr

-- Philippe Lepoivre Paris (phl@cogitel.fr), April 13, 1999

Answers

olympus 2000 is not yet perfectly known.

one difference migth make u choose the nikon : olympus uses smartmedia cards, so they are limited to 16 mb (32 soon). but with compact flash cards u can go up yet to 48 mb and soon to 96 mb. 32 mb means in full resolution u can take no more than 15 photos without compression and maybe 30 using jpeg... i've spend a week in holidays in paradise (galapagos) with a powershot pro 70 using 2 memory cards (total 90 mb) = i took 300 photos without even changing the cards ! what a wonderful experience !

-- batman (batman@claranet.fr), April 22, 1999.

Have you made a choice yet ? Please inform me which one you choose as I've read a couple of your messages and you seem to be on the same wavelength as me. It is indeed a dilemma.

I have also started researching into buying a new digicam. There is a new Toshiba PDR-M4 coming out in May which claims 2.3 megapixels capability though price isn't finalised (check out the Toshiba website). I must have read a zillion reviews in the last couple of days and they all rave about either the Nikon 950 or the Oly 2000Z or the Canon Powershots etc.,etc.,etc., with very little negative responses. Drives me nuts ! Also, I read one of the message boards where some one stated that there is a new technology where you replace standard film catridges for DIGITAL film catridges in normal SLRs !!!!

At the moment I use a NikonF90 SLR which I am happy with but I also want the flex of a digicam to email/reprint/store photos. All the digicams seem to be inferior in quality to an SLR image wise but digicams have that flex I really need (and I won't buy a scanner as that seems like buying old technology). Have you done that comparison between a high end SLR and a digicam ?

It boils down to hardcopies of the prints as I have no faith in website photos 'cos of the ease of manipulation. Also, whether you can rely on the brand. I've owned Oly cameras and they are of a very good quality but Nikon seems to be one notch higher. Good luck

-- CAT (topcat@magix.com.sg), April 26, 1999.

I have had a Nikon CoolPix 900 for 8 months. I have had the Olympus C-2000Z for about a week. Here are my opinions:

1. The Nikon CoolPix 900 makes very good quality images provided that you are successful in capturing them. The 900 is difficult to use in candid situations due to slow AF performance and poor battery management. The sleep mode can result in 15 second delays. During my warrantee period, Nikon offered a speed-up with a few added features (it no longer forgets its flash setting when it goes to sleep, setting the sleep delay now works for the record mode) for $85+ $10 shipping. Think about that before you buy.

2. The Nikon CoolPix 950 addresses many of those problems with the exception being its appetite for batteries. It's picture quality is supposed to be even better than that of the 900. To solve the power problem, you could use an external power supply except that Nikon uses a 6.5V external source. I couldn't find an external battery for it. Also, remember about how Nikon treated 900 owners.

3. The Olympus C-2000 Z is really easy to use and provides excellent images. It is very quick in AF mode. I have been impressed with the image quality in all modes. It has much better battery life, manages power much better, and allows a broad selection of AA batteries. It uses a conventional 6V external power supply, so getting external battery support should be no problem. I have not tried the external flash sync.

4. The Olympus C-2000Z uses SmartMedia. I use 16MB SmartMedia cards which I purchased for about $50 each. You get 78 standard JPEG 1KX768 images, 32 standard JPEG 1600X1200 images, or 16 low compression JPEG 1600X1200 images on a card. There are other choices but these meet my needs.

I carry three of these ($150) which is equivalent to 4-10 rolls of film. They fit in a 2" X 1.5" X 0.25" container. I use a FlashPath SmartMedia adapter to copy them to a harddisk using a floppy disk drive (Mac or PC, requires install of drivers).

32MB SmartMedia are available, but I would rather handle fewer images and have the benefits of less power consumption. It takes about 10 seconds to swap cards on the Olympus, from pocket to pocket.

I use a 40MB CompactFlash card with my Nikon CoolPix 900. Larger CompactFlash cards are available, though they may use more power (a significant issue for me). The 40MB CompactFlash card costs about $150, the same as 3 X 16MB = 48MB of SmartMedia. The cost is comparable.

5. The Nikon 950 has automatic exposure support for external flash. The Olympus C-2000Z has an external PC flash sync but does not support automatic exposure support. Sometimes, I will use my camera on a flash bracket with an external speed light set for bounce flash so automatic exposure (non-TTL) is probably not much of an issue. The Nikon must be removed from the bracket to change cards.

Conclusion: The Nikon CoolPix 900 is a very good camera except when used for candids, especially in cool weather. The 950 addresses all of these issues except battery life and external battery support. If I had been treated better as a Nikon customer, I would not have even looked at the Olympus. I looked, used, and have purchased the Olympus. I am very happy with its quality and usability. (I purchased a 4-year replacement warrantee just in case. Though I have had 4 Olympus cameras, I have never needed to use the warrantee.)

-- Bill Poucher (Bill_Poucher@baylor.edu), May 04, 1999.